Clive:Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?

I spent ~20 years tweaking code, but I can't play piano and don't have frilly shirts.

My first master's thesis was a collection of 40 poems along with a poetics. But I never wore a frilly shirt. I suppose that if I had so little shame as to publish my thesis collection at my website, I might have little enough shame to pose in a frilly shirt.

--------------I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

there are lots of things you can make fun of Frill about that are sorta mean spirited and shitty.

that fucking shirt is not one of those things.

neither is his sissy flounce out style of moderation.

neither is his ignorant blithering about "trolls are easy to detect" roflmao

GAFB at any given moment there are a dozen Poes working UD and these dipshits don't know the Clyde Lewis from the Clyde Moody. Frill grow a set. You will never be a nanogram of a pianist like Del Wood.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Mark Frank, your feeble attempts to rescue Delurker are only more of the same weak brew that he offered. I won’t even stoop to responding to them. To do so would give them more dignity than they deserve.

Thanks, Barry.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Clive:Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

LOL Oops.

Then their design "inference" is incorrect, as I was Blue Lotus and socle I'm guessing is David V.

I did make a post saying as much but as BL has been "retired" by Clive it did not even go into the moderation queue, just vanished.

So much for Clive being "absolutely" certain BL and David V are the same person. They get that wrong even after being absolutely certain, what else are they getting wrong?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations

IMHO much too sophisticated and not edible to GD, a machine emulating a machine?

When I try to visualize an entirely mechanical computing machine instead of the sophistication of electronic devices with operating systems and no means of actually observing their operation, I see a machine that would eliminate all of the objections people like GilD might come up with?

A mechanical device hard-coded to run just the program it was built for. (Or a little more flexible by using a punched tape loop to store the program?)

(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Highly Machiavellian, manipulative people are restrained not by compunctions or words of correction, but by prudence: where they perceive that they will likely get caught and it will hurt them, they will refrain from unacceptable conduct. but if the odds are they will get away with and benefit from it, they will proceed full steam ahead.

So, allowing such amoral men to act without painful consequence them is enabling behaviour.

And, as I have highlighted this morning, evolutionary materialism, since 360 BC, was known to be amoral.

Sadly, the manipulative, destructive darwinist rhetorical tactics above — sadly — fit the pattern as a hand fits a glove. (When I used to see this in the power centres of universities here in the Caribbean, I used to discuss it in terms of “Star Trek World, the reality.” Alcibiades has all too many descendants among us, I am afraid.)

A thought for the day.

G’day

GEM of TKI

In other news, Gordon Mullings is still responding to "Blue Lotus" as if Clive had not retired BL.

I asked Gordon

Quote

So, I ask you KF, what journal access has been restricted and for whom?

He responds

Quote

Read and weep, here and here, onlookers; to see what is going on, when all the blaming the victim and poisoning the well rhetoric has settled down. (Again, inconvenient points already in evidence and steamrollered over. Worse, on matters of patent injustice.)

So one example is about where Stenberg published in a journal his paper (so, er, not restricted then) and the other example is someone who who did not get tenure, not somebody who has been barred from a journal simply because their work supports ID.

So, somebody could in theory ask KF if he has any actual examples of ID supporters being rejected from journals rather then examples of people either sucessfully publishing their paper or examples nothing to do with access to journals.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

The very provenance of the term function indicates that function is identified as a component of making the determination that FSCI is present. As such, FSCI is not going to predict function.

But I thought that if FSCI was present = designed object = function.

So before you can determine the FSCI (ha!) you have to determine if the thing is functional. You could do that by checking it's FSCI - if it has over 500+ FSCI it's functional. You can then determine it's FSCI, as you now know it's functional. Once you know it has FSCI you can be sure it's designed so it has FSCI for sure. And once you know that you can determine it's FSCI, and knowing that allows you to know that it's designed and so worth while measure the FSCI. And once you've measured it you know the object was designed and so can measure the FSCI in the object.

So, Gordon, I suspect you'll shortly be asked if you determine the FSCI for two strings of DNA and come up with the same answer for both (as really FSCI = how long is the string in question) but later find one string is "junk" DNA and does nothing then how can the FSCI be the same for both strings?

And so on and so forth.

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

William Dembski: Not only is his scholarship sloppy on this point (for instance, he fails to distinguish the younger C. S. Lewis, who largely had no problem with evolution, from the later C. S. Lewis, who did), but he justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum:

Quote

I am not a biologist, but what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group fo intelligent design advocates is right and the entire community of biologists is wrong. Consider what two leading Christian biologists say about evolution. Kenneth Miller writes, “Evolution is as much a fact as anyting we know in science,” and Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

That's not an argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity), but an argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). An argumentum ad verecundiam is valid when an unbiased scholar is speaking as an authority in a valid field of study, and there is adequate agreement by such experts in the subject. The proper response to a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

In this case, Dembski doesn't dispute that the vast majority of biologists accept the Theory of Evolution, so even though no specific scholar is named (Appeal to an Unnamed Authority), the cite remains valid. In and of itself, this can be considered a stronger argument (among laypersons), or weaker (among experts in the field).

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn(*a) [snip] post random crap to Facebook.(*b)

...what?

After checking my FezBok, I'm gathering that Carlson covers point "a," and you got that "b" part.

(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?

Damned Turkles just will not hatch!!!, the bastards.

Night three for me, Incubation day 69 or 70 for them, no turkles. I even had the video camera set up with the low-light thing and everything.

A nest boiled last night about a mile up the beach from us, and while everyone else jumped and ran, I hung out at our nest just in case. None of our group made it to the other nest in time to see it, though.

I really, really want to see them hatch. I have an 8 AM class tomorrow and I have a head cold, so I don't know if I'll make the beach tonight. (Of course that means they'll hatch tonight...)

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

SpitfireIXA: I am not an astronomer, but what impresses me is that virtually every astronomer in the world accepts the theory of geocentrism. It seems improbable that the small group for heliocentrism (Galileo and his few fringe friends) is right and the entire community of geocentrists is wrong.

Galileo recanted his heliocentric theory.

Quote

Galileo: I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world

An astute point. This battle, over the currency of ID, is fought with mass market books. There is another battle, fought with laboratories and original, empirical research. ID has retreated from that fight. D’Souza has observed how ID chooses its battles, and drawn an appropriate conclusion.

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,Will Vaus

(P.S. Learned Hand - in the same thread you imply that Darwin wrote in the 17th Century. I think your point is still valid, though)

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,Will Vaus

(P.S. Learned Hand - in the same thread you imply that Darwin wrote in the 17th Century. I think your point is still valid, though)

to hell with "when they quit voting", when mugs say shit that is THIS STUPID then I will always tell them how dumb they are. voting or not

Quote

22jerry09/07/20091:53 pmDarwin wrote a mass market book and look at the result. Dawkins writes mass market books and he got appointed to a prestigious Oxford position. This battle is fought with mass market books.

I doubt the average biologist could cite any evidence for macro evolution. Why because there is no science to support macro evolution. They just assume it exists. And as we know here, there isn’t any. So I assume D’Souza assumes it exists and both he and all these biologist are ill informed.

FOOL, PRODUCE THY AVERAGE BIOLOGIST! AS THOU KNOWEST THERE, ASSUMING IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.

I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.

Learned Hand: He does not say that evolutionary biology is true because the majority of scientists accept it. He says, “what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution.” The unanimous consensus of experts on a topic is relevant to an assessment of fringe arguments against those experts. The consensus doesn’t make the consensus position, but D’Souza doesn’t claim otherwise.

"The consensus doesn’t make the consensus position, but D’Souza doesn’t claim otherwise." SpitfireIXA misses the point, of course.

Quote

SpitfireIXA: Ad Populum is an appeal based on quantity (majority opinion), therefore it fits Dinesh’s logical error. It does not matter whether those appealed to are experts.

Not majority opinion, but consensus opinion. If there is a great deal of uncertainty or opposing opinion within a community of experts on a specific issue, then an appeal to authority may not be valid. (And responsible authority would include mention of these conflicts when asked for an expert opinion.)

It's not a logical error to appeal to the consensus of experts in a field. It doesn't make the argument, and authority is not without its source of error. However, absent countervening evidence, it is reasonable to tentatively accept the findings of such experts.

A paleontologist may consult a geologist for help finding an exposed strata of the appropriate age. A geneticist does not have to replicate Rosalind Franklin's original photographs of DNA before proceeding with an experiment, but can normally rely on the consensus of other researchers that DNA is, in fact, a double helix. And if independent doctors agree you have cancer, then you should probably consider taking appropriate actions.

-By the way, the proper counter to a valid cite to authority is always to the evidence—something which The Argument Regarding Design completely lacks.

Hi all! I'm back from my vacation in the Czech Republic and have wasted my jetlagged Labor Day catching up with all the hilarity of UD.

CZ was great, but the part I really wanted to share with y'all was my 'pilgrimage' to Brno to see the Gregor Mendel Museum. I will try to post some pics soon.

Very nice small exhibit, recently redone. I took photos of the original plot of land where Mendel worked on his pea plants.

An interesting point that was brought up in the exhibit was Mendel's awareness of Darwin's work. Mendel actually travelled to England in 1865, though I doubt he could have ever met Darwin. Mendel did have a copy of OoS, apparently he underlined passages he found important. I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be. Besides OoS, he had several of Darwin's later works as well, that related to his interests in plant husbandry.

All pretty interesting for a guy who went on to become the Abbot of the Augustinian monks in Brno.

(Nakashima came back with me, though it was hard to drag him away from the Czech supermodels, and vice versa. He'll be back in the tardmines of UD soon enough!)